By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
haxxiy on 15 November 2015
Edit Thread
Mr_No said:
ofrm1 said:
Way too cheap of a build. Won't be relevant two years from now and you'll have to spend a bunch more just to make it relevant.

Total will be a little over 800. This is the absolute lowest I would go with a build. Any lower and I'll be eating cost down the road by being forced to upgrade.

Stop buying budget PC's. They're a waste of money and aren't good price for performance. If you're investing in a PC, make sure it will last longer than two years. That means anticipating where graphics will be by that point based on what they were two years ago. System Requirements have never been as demanding as they are now.

Agreed. What's not to say that some parts of this budget PC won't have to be changed on the long (or short) run? I mean, if players would want a better PC experience without hassles and continuous upgrading, they'd want to spend more on the parts, and it wouldn't be a budget PC anymore. Sure, it can run Fallout 4 and GTA V decently as of now. But what about GTA 6? Or the next Fallout? The next Battlefield? The next Elder Scrolls? What about the future games we don't know about? Of course some upgrading will have to be done eventually. But wouldn't it be better for the gaming PC to be futureproof?

Well, the point is making a PC to run GTA V and Fallout 4, isn't it? Little to no point claiming it probably won't run on max games that doesn't even exist yet. Not to mention that when they do, the build will still outperform the graphic settings of PS4/X1 on every game bar the very few oddballs like Arkham Knight, which are complete clusterfucks. The build is fine, and it uses some of the best, if not the best, price/perf ratio pieces in the market. As for those claiming it is a weak build, it probably still outperforms over 90% gaming PCs in the planet, as per Steam data on hardware.